I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[The Hate Giver]

I only have time this morning for a quick reply but I can honestly say that I could care less what info about my personal life (99% of it inaccurate to begin with) people choose to post on this site. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I don't let it bother me. As for bashing, if people are going to make ignorant posts here chances are I'm going to call them on it. The one thing I DO allow to bother me is ignorance and ******ity: It offends my sensibilities you might say.

As for the topic, my position has been many times made quite clear: I believe there are great fighters in EVERY era and no era of boxing as a whole is inherently superior to any other. Not all weight classes are equally strong in every era: It's quite obvious to me that individual weight classes have their ups and downs and are stronger in some eras and weaker in others. They all go through phases and a division that was weak yesterday may be strong today and one that is strong today may be weak tomorrow. Regardless, that doesn't impact the overall strength of boxing as a whole because while in a particular era an individual weight class may be weak you can undoubtably find great fighters in other weight classes.

Poet

fair enough poet.

I respect what you are saying. Modern fighters are just as naturally gifted. Some of them have great reflexes. I'm sure that if the best modern fighters were transported back to the 1920s, not for one fight, but to ply their entire careers then some of them would blossom into ATG fighters. The competition would just be much harder.

And I also agree that Greb would be a force if he were brought forward into the present time.

But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.

Things are not better now, they are just better marketed.

"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no ****in' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil ****in' presence."
Bill Hicks

Have the decency to quote my reply if you are gonna reply. You multi quoted my first post why not my last? As for this most recent post, you are the classic example of an old man stuck in your ways & choose to believe everything was better back then. This post reeks of ignorant old school bias.

Harry Greb has a refined style?

How the heck would you know it was refined? Have you personally seen him fight?

Harry Greb wouldnt benefit from modern medicine,supplements, & training methods?

You have got to be kidding me. This post below bolded perfectly describes you:

The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.

I think it's safe to say, that no boxing historian was ever more respected by his peers than the late Nat Fleischer... yet when you look at his all-time rankings (from 1970), I believe it's just as safe to say, that this is the work of a man who lived in the past, with little sense of reality:

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1970 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

Without beginning to disect these rankings, I think we can all agree, that Mr. Fleischer was WAY too kind to the pre-WW1 fighters... while ignoring the talents of modern-day boxers (Ali, Moore, Charles; to name just a few). So if a respected historian like Mr. Fleischer, can put together rankings as obviously flawed as this... how much emphasis can we put on the opinions of men like Mr. Arcel and Mr. Futch, when they rave about old-timers they haven't seen in 50 or 60 years?

Many years ago, as a young man, I was lucky enough to attend a show, where the main event featured Eddie Perkins. To say that I was impressed, doesn't tell the whole story. When I went home that night, I was certain, I had just watched one of the finest boxers ever to step into a ring! That was over 40 years ago... and to this day I still think of him, as the finest technician I have ever seen. But was he really - or is it just in an old man's mind, it appears that way?

My younger boxing-pals are all crazy about Manny Pacquiao. I would love to tell them that, yes, the dynamic little Filippino is indeed very good... but I once saw this great fighter by the name of Eddie Perkins, who would have boxed his ears off. I don't, however, because 1: I could be wrong (and probably is!), and 2: They would all think I'm crazy!

My point with all this is, that there IS a danger of over-estimating the greatness of old-timers, of which there is little or no footage. That being said, it's hard to believe that Greb wasn't a bit special. As has been pointed out by several others in this thread, he beat too many good fighters not to be!

best post of the thread so far. im not denying greb, just a little reality with an estimation of a man you havent seen fight's greatness.

[Spartacus Sully]

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Johnson over jeffries???!!!! unbelievable, what a crap list!!!!!!

[The Hate Giver]

I wouldn't even try to pick without studying what we do know and breaking down their weaknesses and strengths. What I do know is who fought more top opponents. Who beat more top fighters. And with that Greb is undoubtedly one of the greatest fighters of all time.[/FONT][/COLOR]

a simple question as to who wins a top 3 middleweight of all times vs a 2000s great who hit his prime in his mid 30s & i couldnt even get a straight answer.

one would think that a fighter who is at the very least the 2# best middleweight of all time, i was expecting a quick harry greb answer.

[EzzardFan]

Have the decency to quote my reply if you are gonna reply. You multi quoted my first post why not my last? As for this most recent post, you are the classic example of an old man stuck in your ways & choose to believe everything was better back then. This post reeks of ignorant old school bias.

What that crap from three pages back? There was nothing in that worth quoting.

[The Hate Giver]

What that crap from three pages back? There was nothing in that worth quoting.

i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

Crap from 3 pages back = lets marginalize it because i cant respond to it. Go fantasize how refined harry greb's fighting style is.

How old are you & have you seen greb fight?

[JAB5239]

a simple question as to who wins a top 3 middleweight of all times vs a 2000s great who hit his prime in his mid 30s & i couldnt even get a straight answer.

one would think that a fighter who is at the very least the 2# best middleweight of all time, i was expecting a quick harry greb answer.

Of course you were. You expect me to automatically go with Greb. But the problem is this....first, its the way you asked the question. I try not to just jump to a conclusion and instead like to analyze what has been presented. Second....Hopkins is a top 10 all time middleweight great in my opinion. Hell, some even rate him the best middleweight ever. Styles make fights so this has to be pondered over if you expect any kind of reasonable answer which can be supported with logic and fact.

I would lean toward Greb based on what we know and who he actually beat in comparison to Hopkins. But an argument for Bernard cannot be discounted.

I would submit that there isn't that huge of a gap between the 10th best middleweight ever and the first, except styles and resume. One could win over any of the others on any given night.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.

You'll have to excuse me for just answering this part of your post, the rest of it I agree with in many area's.

You're right about being more impressionable when you're younger and looking back at things as "the good old days". But when experts such as Arcel and Futch's descriptions match all the accounts from the day I find it very hard to discount.

[Bundana]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;7973593]

You'll have to excuse me for just answering this part of your post, the rest of it I agree with in many area's.

You're right about being more impressionable when you're younger and looking back at things as "the good old days". But when experts such as Arcel and Futch's descriptions match all the accounts from the day I find it very hard to discount.

I have the greatest respect for Arcel and Futch. They have seen it all, and there's no way I would simply dismiss their opinions as "old man's talk".

But sometimes our minds can play tricks on us. Now I don't know how old you are, but have you never found a clip on YouTube, of a fight you saw many years ago (ok, if you are a very young man, you probably haven't)... and been surprised to find how different it looks, from the way you remember it?

But again I'll have to say, that even with no video available, and no way of telling what he REALLY looked like in the ring... the evidence that Greb is an ATG is overwhelming! Yes, I know he looks like a fool in that shadow-boxing video... but he faced 13 Hall of Famers, and managed to beat each and every one of them at least once. You don't do that, unless you're a bit special!

[EzzardFan]

i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

OK - just for you I'll go back and dissect your post from page 8:

That is the exact old school bias im talking about. You would favor a 20s-50s great over a 70s & up great? Not if your life depended on it. You just want to keep preserving history for the sake of keeping fighters you loved growing in such a high pedestal. You keep making it look like old school fighters are so much more superior in every way no new school fighter can overtake them hence you get off in defending & knowing how great a fighter you have never seen fight even if there is no visual evidence. If your life depended on getting the right prediction on a fantasy match up harry greb vs roy jones jr. or marvin hagler you would abandon your biased favoritism with greb.

That first section is essentially an attack on me. "You would favor...", "You just want to...", "You keep making it", "If your life depended...", "you get off in...", "you would abandon" etc. Please spare us the mind reading and the accusations.

For a era so touted in so many great fighters one wonders why great fighters in their prime continue to fight fighters with 15,20,30 losses & even fight fighters who have less than 20 wins.

Umm... how am I supposed to respond to that, it's borderline incoherent.

You want to talk about poor refereeing in this era? How about the era where the referee was also the judge? How many robberies took place? At least in the modern era people know the judges & referees name & is show it in television & there is that threat of looking so blatantly corrupt that it somewhat helps in deterring outright shenanigans.

If you say so.

But in the golden era? Controlled heavily by the mafia? Where black people dont even have equal human rights? They are suppose to get a fair shake in sports? Forget about it. No wonder there were so many great white fighters back then when black people didnt have equal rights. As time moves on & social equality & rights are given to all people, the number of great white fighters in all divisions slowly disappear. Are so biased that you think the old school era was free from boxing atrocities & corruption?

Have you read any of my other posts on this forum? For example:

//krikya360.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=352394

On the issue of racism we are in heated agreement. However the racism mainly affected the heavyweight division, the other divisions frequently had black champions. This thread is about Harry Greb. Greb dished out equal opportunities beatings to black fighters, brown fighters, yellow fighters, white fighters. He'd have happily taken on a green Martian if one had landed his flying saucer in the ring. You couldn't have picked a less accurate example of racism if you'd tried.

Did boxers back then throw right hooks, jabs, lead rights, left hooks differently?

I took that to be a rhetorical question.

Last time i checked they were still the same. & those personal trainers, nutrionists, & sports scientists give modern fighters an edge that old school fighters dont.

As you are already aware I disagree on this. I am extremely sceptical on the subjects of sports science and sports nutrition. You haven't actually presented an argument here, just stated your opinion. There's nothing for anyone to respond to.

Yet they are physically inferior? Even though statistics have shown that humans are bigger, stronger, & faster now than they were back then?

I have never claimed that today's athletes are physically inferior. I do support the claim that today's boxers are less experienced and therefore technically inferior in terms of their boxing skills.

You act as if this generation of fighters are devoid of talent. You act as if pernell whitaker, roy jones jr., floyd mayweather jr., manny pacquiao, lennox lewis are physically & talentley inferior to fighters from the 20s.

Well they aren't! Physically they are top athletes, as were the boxers back then. There's noting much between them other than perhaps a bit of airbrushing. And the current crop of boxers are imbued with just as much natural talent, and in many cases incredible reflexes. The point that I've been making is that someone with 10 hours of fight time isn't going to have the experience or gleaned the ring craft of someone like Greb that had clocked up 150 hours of fight time. The boxers in the golden era had honed their craft in a way that is no longer possible due to various external factors.

A right hook in the 30s is the same right hook in present time.

You already stated that. But boxing is greater than the sum of it's punches. Having the best punch doesn't win fights, otherwise those guys that punch through bricks would be the world champions. Boxing is about: confidence, observation, remaining relaxed, deception, peripheral vision, mobility, range, defense, timing, counter strking, balance, weight transfer, leverage, and tactics. And most of all heart.

Stop trying to preserve history in order to shield your favorite oldschool fighters from being over taken in the rankings.

That's an accusation. How am I supposed to respond to that. The people on this thread are having a debate. Take Bundana there for instance (since you've already cited one of his posts). You don't see him throwing accusations about do you?

Its the same reason why paintings back then will always be better than paintings now. To preserve history.

I'm not an art critic so I wouldn't know.

Stop pretending that every single fight that took place in the old school were vs all time great legendary competition. That's not the case & you know it.

That's another accusation followed by another failed attempt at mind reading.

Can you visually see 2d & make a educated & accurate assumption that a fighter is great?

What do you mean "visually see 2d", like as opposed to smelling 2d? Of course I can "visually see 2d", anyone that isn't blind can see something that is 2d. If you want to try this for yourself then take your eyes of the TV for a minute a look at something called a "photograph" (note to other posters - apologies for the sarcasm but the OP was extremely forceful in his request that I respond to this post).

Yes.

& 3d?

probably even better.

Umm I guess so.

Can you do the same with newspaper accounts & a writers opinions which has a high propensity to be biased & sensationalized?

NO.

3d>2d> old newspaper articles.

That is a great first attempt at logic, specially coming from someone who dabbles in mind reading. In fact the way you constructed that sentence it was almost predicate calculus. Keep it up. Unfortunately I'm going to have to counter it. I'm not an expert on boxing, and I doubt that you are either. If we were to watch a fight with half a dozen of boxing's greatest trainers then there's a high probability that they'd see a lot of things that we don't and that their impression of what took place would be more accurate than ours. That's why I am happy to accept that expert opinions are more reliable than my own eyes when it comes to boxing analyses. That's why I am happy to accept expert accounts of Harry Greb from 85 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Greb in action but I'm not vain enough to think that I'm better placed to analyse his capabilities than Ray Arcel. Bert Sugar is a different case as he was primarily a journalist.

You are losing your grip old man.

That's an insult. There's no need to bring insults into a debate. When someone resorts to insulting someone else it's usually because they feel unable to argue their own position effectively, because they've been outclassed.

Even if you have never seen them fight & they are what from 50 years ago. If your life & everybody who you hold dear depended on it, who wins?

Prime Harry Greb or Prime Bernard Hopkins?

You mean hypothetically? OK I'll play. I pick Greb. What now?

i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

The world does not revolve around you LOL. This thread is about Harry Greb not you. There was no conspiracy. You really need to get some sleep.

How old are you & have you seen greb fight?

I'm 39 years old so obviously I haven't seen Greb fight. Was that a trick question LOL?

[EzzardFan]

Seriously though, now can you understand why I didn't originally reply to your post on page 8? It's because there was nothing to debate and I'd just have been getting ****** into a bunch of insults and counter insults. What's to be gained from that? It's just a flame war detracting from the original debate. In my opinion you need to separate the cut and thrust of a debate from a personal attack. It's the same with a boxing match vs a street fight. At the end of a boxing match both guys (usually) hug each other, and the loser congratulates the victor. It' nothing personal. The people genuinely debating this thread are trying to get closer to the truth. We may be wrong or we may be right, but we're educating ourselves and making our brains work hard trying to get to the truth. If you look back along the thread you'll see the experienced debaters taking each others points on board and saying stuff like "Oh yeah - I see what you mean, good point. Thanks for that".

When I see a post like yours, I know that I could go in there and cruelly pick it apart, but that would be like puling the wings off a fly. It's nicer for me to ignore it. In future if you'd like me to debate stuff with you, then you need to present a well reasoned argument and keep the personal attacks out of it.

In LVX (that means "Walk in the light").